September 30, 2015

Digital India vs Net Neutrality

The following article appeared in The Indian Express on September 30, 2015. The full text is below.

Today, when you start up your computer or iPhone and open
a web browser such as Chrome or Safari, you can access over 100 million domain
names with a few clicks. Your data costs do not change depending on whether you
go to Rediff or Flipkart, or whether you download an app to order pizza or post
on Twitter or watch a YouTube video. Your data provider — be it Airtel or
Reliance or BSNL — does not discriminate between different kinds of content,
only how much data you use. This is the benefit of a neutral net, a system that
has worked to the advantage of both internet users (who have enjoyed greater
choice of content) and numerous start-ups (which have enjoyed unparalleled
market access).

But a shift is underway. When Prime Minister Narendra
Modi visited California to drum up support for his Digital India initiative, he
effectively endorsed Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s vision of expanded
access to a pared down internet. Expanded access is, after all, one of the
three pillars of Digital India (the other two being e-governance and
electronics manufacturing). Why not shift costs to content providers (such as
babajobs.com), who enter into exclusive contracts with data providers (such as
Reliance), all enabled by Facebook’s Free Basics app? Such an arrangement could
expand internet use rapidly in a country where some 80 per cent of the
population does not have access, benefiting crores of people. It would also,
naturally, benefit Facebook.

Advocates of net neutrality — a vocal minority linked to
NGOs and internet start-ups — are unhappy with such an arrangement, which they
feel will disadvantage consumers by limiting choice. It could also discriminate
against smaller content providers struggling to compete with established
internet companies. Net neutrality advocates have argued that there are other
ways to expand access and lower costs, such as subsidising data plans or
through advertising.

But this line of argument, too, has its critics. Some
believe implicitly that net neutrality is an elitist concern, echoing
Zuckerberg’s view that “It’s not an equal internet if the majority of people
can’t participate.” Others contend that net neutrality requires unnecessary
government intervention, a forcible levelling of the playing field. Why should
the government prevent Facebook, Reliance and certain websites from entering
into exclusive arrangements, particularly if it helps to expand access and
deflect costs from consumers? The arguments against net neutrality, rather
bizarrely, offer one area in which populists and free-market enthusiasts might
find common cause.

Both sides of this debate bring certain compelling
arguments to the table. In the United States, the government eventually came
out decisively in favour of net neutrality. This made sense in an economy where
the vast majority can afford access to the internet, and where monopolistic
data providers were effectively price gouging. Consumer choice advocates and
Silicon Valley entrepreneurs were overwhelmingly pleased.

India’s circumstances are, however, radically different.
Broadband infrastructure is weak. Spectrum is expensive. Power is still in
short supply. Digital access is now linked to the basics: Subsidies and
rations, identification, financial inclusion and political participation.
Expanding access today is therefore a top priority, which is why most of the
big announcements during Modi’s visit to Silicon Valley were in this domain —
not just Facebook, but also public commitments made by Microsoft and Google to
connect villages and railway stations.

The prime minister has made it clear that access is his
top priority, but net neutrality advocates need not completely despair. The
relentless drive to expand digital access in India may be necessary in the
short term, but may make less sense once the Indian internet market becomes
more saturated. That is another way of saying that the access vs neutrality
dilemma could resolve itself organically. As incomes rise, consumers may
gradually opt for data plans that give them greater access, foregoing more restrictive
but free data services. Facebook’s Free Basics would, in that event, simply be
a stepping stone that contributes in time to its own irrelevance.